Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

1. No Coercive Action Against Employers On MHA Order For Full Payment Of Wages : SC [ Batch Petitions ]The Supreme Court on Thursday passed an interim order that no coercive action should be taken against employers for failure to comply with the March 2. A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, SK Kaul & MR Shah reserved orders for June 12 on the petitions challenging the MHA notification dated March 29, and restrained coercive action till then.Also Read: If Workers Get Paid, They Will Not Migrate: Attorney General On Intent Of MHA Order For Full Payment Of Full WagesAlso Read: 'There Has To Be Some Proportionality; It's A Disaster For Us Too' : Employers On MHA Order For Full Payment Of WagesAlso Read: Authority Which Imposed Lockdown Responsible To Protect Those Affected : Sr Adv Indira Jaising Submits In Support Of MHA Order On Wages2. Migrants Crisis : SC Reserves Order After Hearing Centre, States; To Pass Further Directions On June 9 [ In RE: Problems & Miseries Of Migrant Workers & Other Intervention Applications ]The Supreme Court on Friday reserved orders for June 9 on the suo motu case registered on the issue of migrants crisis, after hearing the Centre, State Government and intervenors. A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, S K Kaul & M R Shah observed during the course of hearing that directions for ensuring the welfare of migrants who have now reached their native states will be passed.3. No Law That The Person Accompanying Principal Culprit Shares His Intention In Respect Of Every Act Which The Latter Might Eventually Commit: SC [ Sonu @ Sunil V. State of Madhya Pradesh ]The Supreme Court has observed that there is no law that a person accompanying the principal culprit shares his intention in respect of every act the latter might eventually commit. The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph made this observation while allowing an appeal filed by a theft and murder accused. Referring to Section 34 IPC, the bench observed that the principle which underlies criminal liability for the acts of another therein, is the shared intention or the common intention to commit an offence.Also Read: [Theft And Murder] Not Safe To Draw An Inference That The Person In Possession Of Stolen Property Was The Murderer: SC 4. [Article 113 Limitation Act] Limitation Period Begins To Run When The Right To Sue Accrues And Not When It 'First' Accrues [ Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. V. The Central Bank of India & Anr. ]The Supreme court has held that in cases governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation begins to run "when the right to sue accrues" and not when the right to sue "first" accrues. A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Indira Banerjee and Dinesh Maheshwari said that the fact that the plaintiff had eventually sent a legal notice on 28.11.2003 and again on 7.1.2005 and then filed the suit on 23.2.2005 gave rise to a cause of action. The bench referred to two earlier decisions: Union of India & Ors. vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. & Anr (2004) 2 SCC 747 and Khatri Hotels Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India (2011) 9 SCC 126.5. [Bhima Koregaon] SC Stays Gautam Navlakha's Bail Proceedings Before Delhi High Court [ National Investigating Agency V. Gautam Navlakha ]The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the proceedings in the Gautam Navlakha's bail proceedings before Delhi High Court. The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the National Investigating Agency (NIA) against a May 27 order of the Delhi High Court whereby it directed the agency to furnish a complete record of the proceedings before the NIA Special Judges based on which he was transferred to Mumbai. A bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Abdul Nazeer & Indira Banerjee also issued notice to Navlakha, seeking his reply and posted the matter for further hearing on June 15.6. Amrapali : Ready To Do Needful For Stalled Project, Says SBI CAP; SC Directs Meeting Between SBI CAP, NBCC & Receiver [ Bikram Chatterji V. Union Of India ]The Supreme Court ordered that the NBCC shall undertake the construction work and the funding will be done through the company for the purpose of construction. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra & UU Lalit granted time to the stakeholders and stated that a be convened between the NBCC, Receiver, the SBI CAP and UCO Bank to do the needful. The SBI CAP told the Supreme Court by way of an affidavit that it was ready to do the needful for the stalled Amrapali project. Further, the bench heard UCO Bank, which said that it was ready to take over the unsold inventory as security and ready to fund a sum of Rs. 2000 Crores in security of unsold inventory. In light of this, Court directed UCO Bank to finalise the complete proposal in this regard within seven days and let it be placed before the Court on the next date of hearing.7. Unsafe To Convict An Accused Solely On The Basis Of Uncorroborated Testimony Of Accomplice: SC [ Somasundaram @ Somu V. The State Rep. By The Deputy Commissioner of Police ]...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Sanya Talwar

Week Commencing June 1 to June 7, 2020

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sanya Talwar

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Sanya Talwar

Week Commencing June 1 to June 7, 2020

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sanya Talwar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers